The Reason why the Iroquois are in Civ 3

[DarkCloud]

Even the dictionary supports this theory:

periodic table
n. Chemistry

[Myrddin]

The real problem for the Iroquois is that they chose the side that unluckily lost the Revolutionary War and so got sidelined by history.

[orange]

the seven nations didn't collectively fight against the Americans. Some faught for, most faught against.

...and that's hardly the reason they got sidelined by historians.

[orange]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
----
Orange- However, I do believe that the Iroquois could probably have helped the British win the Revolutionary war if they tried... The Iroquois could have possibly destroyed the weak Continental army if they teamed up with the British... However, if the entire Continental army faced an equally numbered Iroquois force, the Continental army would have destroyed it--- the Iroquois would beat weapons by sheer force of numbers.
----

Not a chance.

The British could not have defeated the Americans. They won every major battle save a few. They controlled every port. They took New York, they took Philadelphia, they took Savanah. They controlled the south up until the end of the war.

It was a losing battle and they knew it. To win, they would have to actively occupy at least 1/3 of the nation with troops. Far to expensive for a nation that had already had it's coffers drained just getting into the damn war. Plus there was the matter of France.

The Indians tribes during the Rev. war were a nuisance...they did not have the numbers you speak of. There main advantage was Guerilla Warfare, which worked spectacularly. However, the Americans used this own trick against the British. It's how they won most of their battles (Saratoga the obvious outcast)

[DarkCloud]

orange- Britain could have crushed the Revolutionary army in the Battle of Long Island and destroyed the main revolutionary cause, however, General Howe left a gap in his lines and the Revolutionaries escaped through it. This happened three times during the revolution.

If the British had been able to enlist both the slaves and the indians, then the indians could have controlled the backcountry while the British controlled all the American's supplies and ports, America would have eventually tired of the war... in fact, if Cornwallis had received assistance earlier in Yorktown, the war could have dragged on for another few years.

Guerilla tactics did work well for the revolutionaries.
However, all the major battles that truly meant something and really gave them morale were european style battles:


MAJOR BATTLES

-Battle of Bunker Hill ---> British rush hill 3 times, 2 times retreat after being cut down. AMERICANS LOSE
-Battle of Trenton/Princeton--->Yes, this is not a real european battle, they were cowardly surprise attacks. And Yes, they allowed Washington to keep his Continental army alive and functioning because of the morale boosts. AMERICANS WIN
-Battle of Saratoga---> Won because of Arnold's brilliance and Howe's idiocy. Howe planned the attack and would have smashed most of the army if he hadn't gone to conquer Philadelphia. AMERICANS WIN French Join the War (Sooner than they likely would have)
-Battle of Yorktown---> Real Battle, Americans starve British, then overwhelm them. 7,500 French, 7,500 Americans participate in the battle.

...Those were pretty much the nucleus of the real European-style battles, and are considered the most important by historians.

If the war dragged on 5 more years, who knows waht could have happened- Britain was becoming bankrupt as was France, and America was tiring of war as was Britain. Maybe they would have won independence... Maybe not.

But the Indians, if they harassed the settlers enough, could have proved invaluable to the British holding on to their colonies... However, If I was an Indian I wouldn't trust either side.

[orange]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
orange- Britain could have crushed the Revolutionary army in the Battle of Long Island and destroyed the main revolutionary cause, however, General Howe left a gap in his lines and the Revolutionaries escaped through it. This happened three times during the revolution.

NAs had nothing to do with this. It was a colonial army screw up, nothing more. The Brits could have won the war there, but this was VERY early on, and it still would have been impossible for Britain to keep the Americans down for long. My point is - NAs had nothing to do with it.

If the British had been able to enlist both the slaves and the indians, then the indians could have controlled the backcountry while the British controlled all the American's supplies and ports, America would have eventually tired of the war... in fact, if Cornwallis had received assistance earlier in Yorktown, the war could have dragged on for another few years.

Oh, but they did. They offered the slaves freedom after the war if they fought against their "oppressors" the Americans. It worked to minimal effect...mainly in the south where it was quite easy to claim the land (not many dense settlements other than coastal cities) where as in the north it was much more urbanized and holding cities like, say, New York and Philadelphia, meant so much more.

NAs did fight against the Americans during the war. Again, a nuisance more than a military threat.

Yorktown is the end, DC, there's no coming back. The French blockaded the area. It was over. I could say that if Georgie Washington had recieved more reinforcements the war would have ended sooner. It doesn't mean anything. And it certainly doesn't say much for the view that an increase in Native American military pressure would have turned this war around. It would have only been another 10,000 troops for the British. Not enough to change the tide of revolution.

MAJOR BATTLES

-Battle of Bunker Hill ---> British rush hill 3 times, 2 times retreat after being cut down. AMERICANS LOSE
-Battle of Trenton/Princeton--->Yes, this is not a real european battle, they were cowardly surprise attacks. And Yes, they allowed Washington to keep his Continental army alive and functioning because of the morale boosts. AMERICANS WIN
-Battle of Saratoga---> Won because of Arnold's brilliance and Howe's idiocy. Howe planned the attack and would have smashed most of the army if he hadn't gone to conquer Philadelphia. AMERICANS WIN French Join the War (Sooner than they likely would have)
-Battle of Yorktown---> Real Battle, Americans starve British, then overwhelm them. 7,500 French, 7,500 Americans participate in the battle.

...Those were pretty much the nucleus of the real European-style battles, and are considered the most important by historians.

The Brits captured more territory than lost during the revolution, and won more major battles. What you have listed were the important battles for the American side of the war. Yorktown and Trenton were hardly "Euro style" wars. One was a suprise attack, the other a last hurrah...a 'last stand' by Cornwallis.

If the war dragged on 5 more years, who knows waht could have happened- Britain was becoming bankrupt as was France, and America was tiring of war as was Britain. Maybe they would have won independence... Maybe not.

The Americans were tiring of war, yes, but not so much as the British were. Hell, Americans definitely 'wanted' it more so to speak. We would have won eventually...we had grown much during those years of war, and our nation out populated and out produced Great Britain many times over.

But the Indians, if they harassed the settlers enough, could have proved invaluable to the British holding on to their colonies... However, If I was an Indian I wouldn't trust either side.

"invaluable" - you're giving way to much credit. They would have been, at best, information spies for the British, and a bit of a nuisance of frontier attacks. Their presence was greatest in the Mid Atlantic, where they were still defeated with British help...in their own territory! IE Fort Stanwix

The Native Americans fought as effectively as possible against the Americans during the war. There is no "if they had faught harder" Did they make their presence felt - yes they did. Would a greater "effort" of NA tribes against America change the outcome of the war - not on your life.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by El Awrence
http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/mendeleev.htm

"In 1869, the Russian chemist Mendeleev noted that the repeating patterns of behavior could be arranged in a sequence of elements giving rise to the "Periodic Table" of the elements."

Ergo, the periodic table could not exist before Mendeleyev as there was no idea of periodicity in chemistry.

http://chemlab.pc.maricopa.edu/perio...t.html#history

In 1863, a 44 year old French geologist, A. E. Béguyer de Chancourtois created a list of the elements arranged by increasing atomic weight. The list was wrapped around a cylinder so that several sets of similar elements lined up, creating the first geometric representation of the periodic law.
In England, 32 year old analytical chemist John A. R. Newlands was also wrapping the elements, noting that chemical groups repeated every eight elements. He named this the octave rule, and compared it to a musical scale. Some less observant members of the English Chemical Society considered this absurd, so his work was ignored for years.

[orange]

...the Airplane wasn't invented by the Wright Brothers. It was invented by Leonardo da Vinci. Well, the first prototype for something that flew anyway...but that's the same thing right?

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Fiil
Anyway I like this discussion because IMO it concerns the fundamental part of our difference in opinion.

Seems I have neglected you. Sorry! You have some valid points and good questions .

Bronze Working: Did they fabricate their own bronze? Or did they only use copper? I honestly don't know, so you tell me.

Copper and Silver (they knew, but loathed Gold because of its colour!!). Both Bronze and Iron were found by archeologists in burial mounds in areas the Iroquois frequented, but now I think these can't be ascribed to them. Maybe they knew these things existed, but not how to make them. Not sure how to rate Copper and Silver then, since Civ2 has no other early metal tech. What do you think?

Map Making: Again I don't know, did they draw their own maps?

All plains and forest tribes did, on hide. They didn't need it often, but the skill as such was widespread and useful beyond treasure maps.

Writing: This will take more than four symbols on a belt! For one thing it requires sentences, not only nouns put together to give a general meaning.

Included adjectives and other elements, but not written in complete sentences as we know them. Glyphs, their placement, and colours all had meaning. Note that apart from the wampums, hieroglyphs were also used in communication between tribes that didn't speak each other's language (James H. Merell: "Into the American Woods: Negotiations on the Pennsylvania Frontier").

Code of Laws: A complete list of crimes with punishments, I don't know if they had this but I doubt it.

All decisions by the high council, including new laws passed, were recorded. The idea of having a 'complete list' was, however, alien to them - which seems good wisdom to me.

Mathematics: Geometry and arithmetics at least, again I doubt they had it.

Geometric shapes can already be found on ancient Iroquois pottery. With all the trade they did, I don't see how they could not know some basic arithmetic. They could picture numbers with their script. Much is not required in civ2, math comes early.

Construction: The very basics of contruction includes the knowledge of how to raise a selfsupporting arc, the romans were one of the first people to learn this.

Covered elsewhere. The Iroquois never built a colosseum or aqueduct (but neither did other civs), but they built good fortresses.

Navigation: The ability to orientate after the stars alone. I doubt they could do this.

Glad you don't say that only navigating the ocean counts . Covered elsewhere.

Engineering: Engineers use scientific approach in solving all problems. This includes calculations on constructions. The military or civil engineer at which this "discovery" is clearly aimed also use simple mechanisms like transmissions.

I gave another definition, hard to say which one applies in Civ2. The Iroquois used wedges and levers which is basic transmission. Without The Wheel, however, they didn't get beyond these very basics.

Monotheism: Requires them to have one god! Explaination please.

Known as the Creator. Gradually, other gods like of earth and wind had been reduced to spirits in Iroquois religion. When they met the Europeans both sides were equally monotheistic.

Medicine: To make this more than witchcraft, it is necessary to know the functions of the different parts of the body (this includes most entrails). Having medicine means you're educating some members in your tribe systematicly, and that every 'medicine man' uses the same approach.

While not familiar with 'most entrails', the Iroquois knew how to heal different diseases and to treat wounds (edit: , fractures) and feaver. They new many medecinal herbs and oinments. Their medicine did indeed require specialization and schooling.

Chemistry: This is not alchemy! This is knowing that substances are made up of atoms with specific properties.

Well, I would agree, only in Civ2 it IS Alchemy. It's a Renaissance tech! See also elsewhere.

Theology: Like medicine this requires literacy and university without it you simply cannot assure a systematical training of students.

They had some kind of Shaman (can't remember the name) who dealt with such matters and had apprentices. Not the same person as the healer.

Tactics: Here I'm not sure, but to make this a discovery that all stoneage men didn't have, this must be the military tactics needed to control an army of infantry, cavalry and artillery at the same time so that these enforces eachother.

Or, in the case of the Iroquois before contact, clubmen, archers and canoes. They excelled at military tactics.

Monarchy: This is when the crown is inherited, not when a king is voted for like in the early dark ages in Europe.

The title of Chief was inherited, with exceptions when someone was challenged.

Finally, note that all of the above is from before their Golden Age.
Hope this helps!

[orange]

In the early days of seafaring, sailors operated solely through a process known as "piloting", in which the position and course of the ship was determined by referring to geographical landmarks. The need to stay in view of the shore severely limited the extent of sea voyages. Through experience, sailors learned to apply the science of astronomy to their profession, noting the positions and movement of particular stars. They realized that even when the shore was out of sight, they could steer by certain reliable stars. This crude, yet practical application of astronomy allowed the adventurous to sail into the unknown with a reasonable chance of finding their way. As a result, ship building technology quickly improved, producing larger, more stable ships designed for longer voyages.

That is the Civ2 definition of Navigation. You can't argue that the Iroquois had this. Please, don't waste your time or mine trying.

[Ribannah]

That is an excellent description, I already argued the Iroquois had the skill. They just didn't seek to apply it to seafaring, that's all. Instead they ventured into the unknown on land and lake.

By the way, flying didn't start with the airplane, it started with the balloon.

[orange]

gaa! Don't know why I hit "submit reply"...I'm far from done.

I gave another definition, hard to say which one applies in Civ2. The Iroquois used wedges and levers which is basic transmission. Without The Wheel, however, they didn't get beyond these very basics.

Civ 2...

Engineering is the application of scientific and mathematical principles to the design and/or manufacture of theoretical systems and physical objects. Prior to the mid-18th century, all engineering functions were carried out by military engineers. Their work involved the construction of roads, bridges, fortifications, and the performance of other duties relating to the military. In the late 18th century, civil engineers took over all nonmilitary engineering functions. Other fields of engineering prior to the 20th century included mining engineers, who designed mines and methods of mining, and mechanical engineers, who dealt with the design and construction of machinery. As new technologies developed, new fields of engineering developed along with them. Today, there are engineers specifically trained in nearly every field, from electronics and computers to chemistry and atomics.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

They had some kind of Shaman (can't remember the name) who dealt with such matters and had apprentices. Not the same person as the healer.

This is not theology. Once again, you want to go by Civ 2...I'll give you Civ 2

Theologians take a more or less scientific approach to questions of religion, deeply studying the underlying meaning of scriptures and religious teachings rather than "taking them on faith". Theological seminaries teach courses of study in theology to prepare people as priests and clergymen. Many of the earliest colleges of the western world were originally established for this purpose. Theological study helped to remove some of the superstitions that had surrounded religion for so long, and brought religious study into a more enlightened age.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While not familiar with 'most entrails', the Iroquois knew how to heal different diseases and to treat wounds and feaver. They new many medecinal herbs and oinments. Their medicine did indeed require specialization and schooling.

God bless Civ 2...
(Iroquois stage of Medicine highlighted in bold)

Primitive man attributed the onset of serious disease as the influence of the gods, or possession by evil spirits. Over time, however, it was found that such "possessions" could be treated through the use of elixirs made from plant extracts. Methods were also developed to clean and treat wounds, and set fractured bones. The ancient Greeks established the first schools to teach medical sciences circa 500 BC. The texts produced by the students of these schools, most notably Hippocrates, who is considered the father of medicine, based his theories of the human body on observation and reasoning rather than supernatural intervention. Continued study of diseases over the years, combined with the dissection and study of the human body in the 13th century, pointed out flaws in early Greek theories, and led to more accurate medical texts based on detailed analysis rather than conjecture. By the 18th century, the same methods of analysis and observation used by scientists in other fields were applied to the study of medicine. This paved the way for the increasingly effective methods of treatment and surgery that have prevailed over the last 200 years.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Iroquois never built a colosseum or aqueduct (but neither did other civs), but they built good fortresses.

out of what?

Civ 2 Construction...

The development of masonry led to a widespread use of stone in simple structures such as fortifications, but due to the weight and cumbersome nature of stone blocks, more complex structures had to be made of simpler materials. The need for the widespread use of more durable and permanent materials eventually became apparent, forcing ancient artisans to learn new techniques. The biggest problem to overcome was finding a stable way to span the distance between two upright columns or walls using stone blocks. To solve this problem, fundamental architectural elements such as the arch and vault evolved. These basic construction techniques allowed larger and more elaborate buildings to be created from stone and mortar. Many of the buildings erected by these early builders are still standing, a testament to the sound construction techniques employed in their construction.

[orange]

Originally posted by Ribannah
That is an excellent description, I already argued the Iroquois had the skill. They just didn't seek to apply it to seafaring, that's all. Instead they ventured into the unknown on land and lake.

Bull ****. Navigation is not a inland tech. It is for use on the seas. Did the Iroquois excell at understanding their surroundings and distinguishing landmarks? They sure as hell did. This goes along with Map Making.

Did they have knowledge of Navigation - NO!

By the way, flying didn't start with the airplane, it started with the balloon.

So the Iroquois had knowledge of 'Flight' as well eh? or would that be 'advanced flight'?

[Ribannah]

All excellent descriptions of the skills, only some of the applications are different.

[orange]

All excellent descriptions of the skills, only some of the applications are different.

You didn't even read them. Go ahead, just TRY to rebut what I've said. Please do. Prove to me that you're right and I'm wrong. I've got all the time in the world.

[Ribannah]

... eight balloons were launched from Iroquois Park

How can one rebut denial?

[orange]

denial nothing. The Iroquois did not possess the knowledge you claimed they possessed...plain and simple.

...face it, you've run out of bull **** and now you're using these asinine "you're in denial" tactics to worm your way out. Unbelievable.

Someone give me a call when she starts getting righteous again.

[aaglo]

Originally posted by orange
... The Iroquois did not possess the knowledge you claimed they possessed...

Haven't you thought that they had all that technology from their own point of view...

[Wernazuma III]

Orange: why do you argue with them?

they call the mixing of some herbs chemistry; they call the typical democratic structure of pre-monarchistic societies "democracy" in the sense of modern democracy; they call any thoughts about the nature of the cosmos "philosophy", whereas we define it as a systematic scientific approach; they call hut-making architecture;

It's a discussion, where both groups argue from different bases. It's pointless.

[orange]

Originally posted by aaglo

Haven't you thought that they had all that technology from their own point of view...

Yeah! However, she herself has said that we should relate this to Civ 2...so I'll post the whole damn civolopedia if she wants me to

[orange]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Orange: why do you argue with them?

...meh, something to do...

...nah. This has been an ongoing battle really. But I don't think it's fair to use these half-truths (and sometimes less than half-truths ) to explain and warrant the Iroquois civ being in the game.

As I've stated before, there's tons of valid reasons why people want the Iroquois in the game, and if you want them in the game, that's your opinion.

However, saying that the Iroquois had knowledge of medicine, construction, theology, and as Ribannah has claimed...flight, is NOT valid and quite misleading.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
they call the mixing of some herbs chemistry

I don't now who 'they' are , but I call this cooking (something the Iroquois excel at, btw. Their recipes are very popular).

they call the typical democratic structure of pre-monarchistic societies "democracy" in the sense of modern democracy

The north Amerind tribes did not have the typical structure (despotism). They had a soviet system. Many plains tribes kept this system, while the Iroquois and other forest tribes progressed.

they call any thoughts about the nature of the cosmos "philosophy"
whereas we define it as a systematic scientific approach

This is the definition I thought appropriate: Philosophy: the rational approach of nature, as opposed to the mystical approach. I am not saying that other definitions are less valid, just explaning my choice of adding philosophy to the list.

they call hut-making architecture

That is Construction, if done with planning and design. In addition to longhouses (a little more sophisticated than huts!), the Iroquois before contact built community halls, granaries, walls and fortresses.

It's a discussion, where both groups argue from different bases. It's pointless.

With the difference that one side is denying the right of the other side to have their base.

[orange]

Originally posted by Ribannah
The north Amerind tribes did not have the typical structure (despotism). They had a soviet system. Many plains tribes kept this system, while the Iroquois and other forest tribes progressed.

This does not equate to Communism...it's still despotism.

This is the definition I thought appropriate: Philosophy: the rational approach of nature, as opposed to the mystical approach. I am not saying that other definitions are less valid, just explaning my choice of adding philosophy to the list.

The term "Philosophy" is completely vague. It can't be defined, as any thought or notion can be considered Philosophy. On that note, I'd say the Iroquois and any civilization had "knowledge" of Philosophy.

That is Construction, if done with planning and design. In addition to longhouses (a little more sophisticated than huts!), the Iroquois before contact built community halls, granaries, walls and fortresses.

no, it's not. Anyone can make a hut. Drop a few kids on an island and they can make a hut. This is not construction. Construction involves architectural design, not "how can we make a shelter" No arch, no vault, no mathematical principals, no materials other than clay mud stone and straw - no construction.

With the difference that one side is denying the right of the other side to have their base.

My problem is that your definitions are not the same as the standard definitions used by every other civ in the game. There can't be an exception to the rule simply because there was no contact between the Iroquois and anyone else. The Inca Maya and Aztec did just fine on their own, before European contact.

[Wernazuma III]

OK, I'm not going to discuss the rest, I've made my point clear, I knew you'd say, I'm not correct, but I also said it leads nowhere, so I won't continue. I just allow myself a remark on the following (although or maybe because it has nothing to do with this struggle):

Originally posted by Ribannah
The north Amerind tribes did not have the typical structure (despotism). They had a soviet system. Many plains tribes kept this system, while the Iroquois and other forest tribes progressed.

I don't know why most people think, that the "original" social system of mankind was a strictly hierarchical despotism with some mighty over-aga-aga or high-mugu-mugu that held all power over his people. Tribal societies are generally marked by a light version of monarchic elements (family of the chiefdefinitely had more prestige) but moreover democratic elements (chief who fails got to resign or is killed), limited rights of the chief, often even democratic elements in the form of vote by the family/clan elders and a socialist component by community economic activity. That's not only true in America but is almost a constant in hunting or "low-agricultural" societies.

[Ironwood]

Well, I've skimmed the thread, though mostly I just want to respond to Ribannah's last reply to me.

But first, Orange. Philosophy = love of truth. Basically, a society that has gotten past the muck of loving only what their great ancestors taught and is now attempting to discern what is true regardless of religeous implications could be considered "philosophical." Once could say that, while the Greeks had it, it was lost to Europe until it was rediscovered on "scrolls of ancient wisdom" during the Reniassance, with the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution being the heyday of this new "tech." I would only say the Iroqois had "Philosophy" if at least the "cool" people (those at the top of the hierarchy) pursued new truth for truth's sake. So much of what we now call "philosophy" is little more than drug induced ramblings.

Back to Ribannah, and perhaps, others. Just a few comments on my conceptions of various "techs."

I still consider Chivalry to be the "tech" possesed by a society which possesses, at least, a warrior aristocracy, at most, a horse based warrior aristocracy. The social structure upon which this rests is generally this: there isn't truly a "state" which can both economically maintain and culturally command a cutting edge military, thus the wealthy of society, who can afford things like horses, the latest weapons and armor, etc. that take the burden of protecting society. Because they can protect it during a period of anarchy, they control it (because if people say no, they can just leave them to the barbarians, or just be barbarians themselves). Notice that in Civ2, feudalism (along with horseback riding) was a prerequisite for chivalry. At least, IIRC.

Navigation: The prereqs in Civ2 were astronomy and map making, basically knowledge of sky and sea. I still maintain that navigating according to landmarks is little more than an intrinsic human ability, no research or development required. Notice that the first deep ocean vessel (the caravel) is attatched to Navigation. Quite simply put, navigation, in game, allows ships to venture away from the landmarks without geting lost. It is apparent that whoever made the tech tree, from the prereqs and the attatched unit, indended "Navigation" to represent navigation without the use of landmarks.

Chemistry: Your claims here are ludicrous. Any neandertol can mix two substances accidentally, discover it is useful, remeber it later, and pass it down through generations. Sometimes, a uniquely gifted individual may think about it, try something that should work, and lo and behold, it works. He then passes it down through the generations, and it becomes part of the skills of the people. Though you may call this individual a "chemist" you can hardly consider the culture to know "chemistry."

I generally think a "tech" can only be considered "discovered" if it goes from being simply the ability of a gifted individual to being an institution. Erostarchus (sp?) postulated a heliocentric cosmology; that doesn't mean the "greek" culture had that "tech." Indeed, it didn't catch on until Tycho Brahe made his observations and Kepler did his calculations.

Chemistry isn't simply the ability to use known recipies. Chemistry is the process by which these recipies are discovered. Though gifted individuals may discover something and pass it down, it isn't Chemistry until the very process of discovery itself is sufficiently developed to pass it down. This is why the leather working guilds aren't considered to know "chemistry," and why it's a somewhat midgame tech. The Iroqois did not have this. I believe the prereqs for this were medicine (which you could make a case for) and... of corse. The University. Once again, not haphazard discovery, but systematic study.

Leadership and Tactics: Once again, your definition is vague, and universal. Though as "terms" one could say they had it, one could also say the Greeks and Romans had it, as well as most other civilizations in existance. The "tech" serves a much more specific purpose: allow for specific units to be built, in the proper order. I myself added a custom tech (the name of which I have forgotten) that served much the same purpose with ships, ensuring that frigates and galleons came before cruisers (which it is possible to discover "electricity" before ever discovering "magnetism" by the usual tech tree... which is silly). One might say leadership and tactics should be necessary to build a legion (which was really just a revolutionarily flexible military unit)... it's not. The techs are poorly named, and though you can say they knew how to use these concepts (indeed, leadership is probably best understood in a tribal society), the Civ techs (or rather the Civ2 techs) do not reflect this.

Masonry: I imagine the Iroqois could have built a stone structure if they wished, as well. That would not be difficult. It is also not difficult to learn Masonry in Civ whenever you may need it, as it is a root technology (no prereqs). One could say, that the potential is always there in all human societies, just someone needs to sit down and figure it out.

All in all, your difficulties in this area seem to be no more than a lack of understanding of what the developers had in mind when they created the tech tree... that an a fanatical devotion to the memory of the Iroqois. The chemistry thing is the most blatant, but then again, having studied chemistry in high school (which is unusual in the American education system, and yes I do know you're not american), I would know more about this than most persons who haven't specifically studied it in college or something.

As to fanatical devitions to a specific and not well known civilization, I myself am a bit of a Sinophile (I expound on all things Chinese, and consider them to be the root of much of what we consider "modern" concepts) so I know where you're coming from. For example, did you know that there are a few direct and traceable lines of transmission of licence by examination (whether written or oral) from the Chinese to modern Europe? It's really quite fascinating.

[orange]

great post Ironwood

Btw: That's a good definition for Philosophy. When one starts gaining knowledge because one WANTS to gain knowledge, and when a society examines its cultures and beliefs, rather than accept them as fact. (The Religious form of Philosophy being Theology in a sense)

So much of what we now call "philosophy" is little more than drug induced ramblings.

So...like...then I got this idea...what if...we're all like...spirits...or something...and we all like...are swimming around...in some fishbowl...in like someone's house. ...yeah...pass me another joint bro.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by orange

Oh, but they did. They offered the slaves freedom after the war if they fought against their "oppressors" the Americans. It worked to minimal effect...mainly in the south where it was quite easy to claim the land (not many dense settlements other than coastal cities) where as in the north it was much more urbanized and holding cities like, say, New York and Philadelphia, meant so much more.

I know they did, it just didn't work as well as it may have, if enough slaves were armed and rose up then it may have worked- however, that strategy just turned more people against the British as many tories owned slaves

Yorktown is the end, DC, there's no coming back. The French blockaded the area. It was over. I could say that if Georgie Washington had recieved more reinforcements the war would have ended sooner. It doesn't mean anything. And it certainly doesn't say much for the view that an increase in Native American military pressure would have turned this war around. It would have only been another 10,000 troops for the British. Not enough to change the tide of revolution.

Reinforcements and supplies arrived for Cornwallis less than a month after he surrendered, he could have held out longer and attempted to fight the Continental Army... If enough AmerInds couldh ave been persuaded to help, they could have destroyed colonial supply lines, due to the fact that they could better fight an unconventional war better.

The Brits captured more territory than lost during the revolution, and won more major battles. What you have listed were the important battles for the American side of the war. Yorktown and Trenton were hardly "Euro style" wars. One was a suprise attack, the other a last hurrah...a 'last stand' by Cornwallis.

I still maintain that Yorktown was euro-style. I don't think either of us can truly prove either way.

The Americans were tiring of war, yes, but not so much as the British were. Hell, Americans definitely 'wanted' it more so to speak. We would have won eventually...we had grown much during those years of war, and our nation out populated and out produced Great Britain many times over.

Britain had more people at the end and the beginning of the war 9 million to 2 million. Britain also produced more than the revolutionaries--- yes the Revolutionaries could have won the war after the battle of Saratoga, it was almost inevitable that if there was at least one army, the americans would win within 10 years... If the army was destroyed... independence in 50 at least. Britain couldnt hold on to the colonies... you are correct.

"invaluable" - you're giving way to much credit. They would have been, at best, information spies for the British, and a bit of a nuisance of frontier attacks. Their presence was greatest in the Mid Atlantic, where they were still defeated with British help...in their own territory! IE Fort Stanwix

The Native Americans fought as effectively as possible against the Americans during the war. There is no "if they had faught harder" Did they make their presence felt - yes they did. Would a greater "effort" of NA tribes against America change the outcome of the war - not on your life.

...Possibly, but the Iroquois league didn't throw in fully against the Colonists... thus we may never know At best, you are correct, they may have helped the British win the MidAtlantic, beyond that no AmerInds were united enough to help.

[DarkCloud]

Ribannah- many people made 'period tables' Mendeleev created the one we use today- he created the best arrangement of periods, no one else came close to his creation!

All decisions by the high council, including new laws passed, were recorded. The idea of having a 'complete list' was, however, alien to them - which seems good wisdom to me.

BUT ACCORDING TO CIV III's DEFINITION THEY DIDN'T HAVE ONE.

Glad you don't say that only navigating the ocean counts . Covered elsewhere.

FOR CIV IT COUNTS!

... Note, I am fairly sure Ribannah is correct about Monotheism... although I fail to see how Monotheism is more advanced than Polytheism.

--IROQUOIS DID NOT INVENT THE BALLOON...

---
Ribannah did you not read your article about the periodic table- it clearly says that Mendeleev created the first true periodic table that we use today because of its boldness in design!

The north Amerind tribes did not have the typical structure (despotism). They had a soviet system. Many plains tribes kept this system, while the Iroquois and other forest tribes progressed.

So, now they invented communism!
How can they have both Democracy, Monarchy AND Communism... They had Feudalism (Without the land) and an Alliance.
Democracy in their Alliance between voting chiefs and tribes. Technically ALL Leaders of nations (when first formed as tribes) were elected, they were the best, in EVERY instance.

For civ III the definition is more narrow

[orange]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
I know they did, it just didn't work as well as it may have, if enough slaves were armed and rose up then it may have worked- however, that strategy just turned more people against the British as many tories owned slaves

Possibly, but to arm those slaves, you have to have control over the area they're in...which means you've already taken the territory, which means there's no need to arm the slaves (except for defensive purposes)

The goal was to get an expendible front line for the British army battles. What better than "worthless negroes" to fill this position.

Reinforcements and supplies arrived for Cornwallis less than a month after he surrendered, he could have held out longer and attempted to fight the Continental Army... If enough AmerInds couldh ave been persuaded to help, they could have destroyed colonial supply lines, due to the fact that they could better fight an unconventional war better.

Once again, the Americans were starving the Brits to a last stand. There was no "just one more month" and even if there was, the French navy was there to stop any such attempt.

Britain had more people at the end and the beginning of the war 9 million to 2 million.

DC, check this. I'm almost positive it was closer to 30 million colonists -> 9 million British. I may be wrong. But I'm fairly sure that numbers is ridiculously low.

Britain also produced more than the revolutionaries--- yes the Revolutionaries could have won the war after the battle of Saratoga, it was almost inevitable that if there was at least one army, the americans would win within 10 years... If the army was destroyed... independence in 50 at least. Britain couldnt hold on to the colonies... you are correct.

50? What do you base that on?!

...Possibly, but the Iroquois league didn't throw in fully against the Colonists... thus we may never know At best, you are correct, they may have helped the British win the MidAtlantic, beyond that no AmerInds were united enough to help.

75% effort at least. And the other 25% wouldn't have been 'just enough' to change the tide of the war.

[Ribannah]

So, to sum up, at this point most of us seem to agree about, or at least to some extent:

Pottery, Alphabet, Warrior Code, Bronze Working equivalent, Ceremonial Burial, Map Making, Writing, Code of Laws, Mathematics, Feudalism, Mysticism, Polytheism, Monarchy, Trade, Astronomy, Philosophy, The Republic, Leadership, Medicine, Monotheism, Tactics, Democracy, Guerilla Warfare, Environmentalism

While the disagreements are mainly with:

Construction, Chivalry, Engineering, Navigation, Theology, Communism

I can live with this, even if some of you would individually like to move a few more items from the first to the second list I'd say the Iroquois did pretty well on their own, with their Golden Age yet to come. Most other civs in the top 16 could build on what older civs had discovered.